What is Iran up to?

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Anyone that says that Israel should be wiped off the map and thinks it's a good idea to kill Americans is NOT a safe bet for owning nukes.

And someone who thinks God told him to invade Iraq isn't the safest bet either.

Lets face it the whole nuclear thing is like an exclusive country club. The big countries are happy to continue wasting huge amounts of money on nuclear weapons but when someone else wants to join the club they start throwing their toys out the pram until they need something from the country (like Pakistan, once the US needed to base planes there to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan them testing nuclear weapons was quietly forgotten about)

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Lets not forget who is the only country that has used them on people and if they had developed them earlier I am sure they would have used them on Germany, nuclear winter on main land Europe.

I only wish they HAD developed it earlier and HAD used it to finish the war earlier.

A couple of nukes on Germany would NOT have caused a nuclear winter (go check up what that actually means.)

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The fact is America got more than they bargained for in Iraq and Iran is trying to take advantage of that,

I don't think the US or British military have underestimated the job they'd have to do in Iraq. Certainly the people of US and Britain had unreasonable expectations that haven't been met.

As someone has already pointed out, military action against Iran is simply a completely different proposition, and yes, Iran realise this perfectly well, which is why they are so cocky about the whole business.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I don't think the US or British military have underestimated the job they'd have to do in Iraq.

Ahem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4603136.stm

Originally Posted by BBC News

Officers displayed cultural ignorance, self-righteousness, over-optimism

There have been plenty of other articles from various sources that the plan for after Saddam wasn't thought out in anywhere as much detail as was needed.

Originally Posted by dezzo

And someone who thinks God told him to invade Iraq isn't the safest bet either.

I ignore what an individual American might say - I trust in the safety systems that don't allow a single person to make a firing decision. I trust in a country where I know democracy is working.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Lets face it the whole nuclear thing is like an exclusive country club.

Yup - it is a VERY exclusive club, and one that doesn't need any more members!

Originally Posted by dezzo

The big countries are happy to continue wasting huge amounts of money on nuclear weapons

I think you'll find none of the present members of the club are expending any money on acquiring nukes. In fact, many have reduced their stockpile.

Originally Posted by dezzo

but when someone else wants to join the club they start throwing their toys out the pram until they need something from the country (like Pakistan, once the US needed to base planes there to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan them testing nuclear weapons was quietly forgotten about)

It was never forgotten, quietly or otherwise. There was, and still is, a lot of concern over Pakistan and India and their nuclear ambitions. Mostly because we fear they'll use them on each other.

As for America 'bombing the hell out of Afghanistan' - that was hardly some unilateral, unjustified action they took. The Taliban are despots - even worse than Saddam ever was. Can you imagine what the Taliban would do if they got their hands on nukes?

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

Ahem.

One officer's opinion.

Originally Posted by dezzo

There have been plenty of other articles from various sources that the plan for after Saddam wasn't thought out in anywhere as much detail as was needed.

Any soldier knows - the plan is the first casualty of war. They could NEVER have planned for the outcome they got - only for the one they would have liked. Once that changes, then you just adjust the plan to suit.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

And someone who thinks God told him to invade Iraq isn't the safest bet either.

I'm sure the thread we had about this showed that it was something made up in arab press and was not based on fact.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Lets face it the whole nuclear thing is like an exclusive country club.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that members of that "club" don't want any other countries to "join"

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I trust in a country where I know democracy is working.

Hmmm, remind me again who got more votes in the 1st election the Bush Jnr got elected in?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I think you'll find none of the present members of the club are expending any money on acquiring nukes.

I think you'll find the US and UK spend huge amounts on keeping their current stockpiles up to date and the US have a sizeable amount of defense spending on newer models of nuclear weapons.
Thats why they have a couple of supercomputers working away on modeling nuclear blasts so they don't have to go down the French route and blow up a small island in the Pacific somewhere.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Hmmm, remind me again who got more votes in the 1st election the Bush Jnr got elected in?

That would have been G W Bush, with 5 more electoral votes than Al Gore.
Did you not know that?

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Are you saying it's a bad thing that members of that "club" don't want any other countries to "join"

No. I'm saying it hypocritical of the West to be so against any attempts by other countries (with the exception of Israel) while still having huge stockpiles of weapons and not making any real efforts to eliminate them completely.

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That would have been G W Bush, with 5 more electoral votes than Al Gore.
Did you not know that?

I meant votes from the people. You know the general population. IE. His bosses (allegedly)
Plus pretty much any recount would show that the Florida count was full of inconsistancies and could very, very easily have gone the other way.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

No. I'm saying it hypocritical of the West to be so against any attempts by other countries (with the exception of Israel) while still having huge stockpiles of weapons and not making any real efforts to eliminate them completely.

So you don't think they should be preventing other countries having nukes, because doing so is "hypocritical" (incidently, the US were against Israel having them)?

Originally Posted by dezzo

I meant votes from the people. You know the general population. IE. His bosses (allegedly)
Plus pretty much any recount would show that the Florida count was full of inconsistancies and could very, very easily have gone the other way.

Ok, you really don't know how the electoral system works in the US.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you don't think they should be preventing other countries having nukes, because doing so is "hypocritical" (incidently, the US were against Israel having them)?

Officially.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/

Originally Posted by NTI

In the wake of the Meir-Nixon agreement, the United States ended its annual visits in Dimona; in addition, the United States no longer pressured Israel to sign the NPT, adopting instead a de facto policy of "don't ask, don't tell."

Unofficially they haven't threatened Israel with Sanctions or bombing have they?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ok, you really don't know how the electoral system works in the US.

I do. I just think the 'World greatest democracy' having a system where you only really have a choice between two people and even if more of the population vote for one candidate and he still loses is fairly laughable.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Hmmm, remind me again who got more votes in the 1st election the Bush Jnr got elected in?

Democracy is not perfect, but it's better than an autocracy, theocracy or a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by dezzo

I think you'll find the US and UK spend huge amounts on keeping their current stockpiles up to date and the US have a sizeable amount of defense spending on newer models of nuclear weapons.

I'd rather see them let the weapons get old and unreliable. For them to go unserviced and for them to become unservicable. That sound really sensible.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Thats why they have a couple of supercomputers working away on modeling nuclear blasts so they don't have to go down the French route and blow up a small island in the Pacific somewhere.

And that's a bad thing?

---------- Post added at 09:54 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

No. I'm saying it hypocritical of the West to be so against any attempts by other countries (with the exception of Israel) while still having huge stockpiles of weapons and not making any real efforts to eliminate them completely.

There is no exception being made for Israel. They are no more adding to their nuclear arsenal than the US or UK.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

I do. I just think the 'World greatest democracy' having a system where you only really have a choice between two people and even if more of the population vote for one candidate and he still loses is fairly laughable.

In that case you'd better have a real belly laugh at the UK electoral system, where an entire government can be decided upon by a (small) minority.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Officially.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/

Unofficially they haven't threatened Israel with Sanctions or bombing have they?

Totally different situation. Israel has nukes (as far as we know) and don't have a reason to use them.
Iran doesn't have nukes, would like them, and has said it wants to wipe another nation off the face of the earth.
Can you not see a major difference there?

Originally Posted by dezzo

I do. I just think the 'World greatest democracy' having a system where you only really have a choice between two people and even if more of the population vote for one candidate and he still loses is fairly laughable.

It's their democracy, and as a democracy, it's open to change if they so wish. So far they haven't.
We have a first past the post system, rather than PR, many people say this is undemocratic.
There is no one single form of electoral system within democracy.

[Damien]

I do. I just think the 'World greatest democracy' having a system where you only really have a choice between two people and even if more of the population vote for one candidate and he still loses is fairly laughable.

It also should bt noted that with the 3 houses and so forth america has a very good democracy with lots of built in checks and balances. An impressive system considering the Founding Fathers did not aim to create a true democracy (many where against the idea of the population voting for their leaders)

Iran is:

• Less Stable
• Leaders are less accountible
• Has few, if no, checks on its leaders use of weapons
• Does not have the capiblity to store the weapons securely and safetly and the ability to keep them out of the hands of terrorists
• The leader of Iran has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map! You think this guy should have nukes!!!

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by Damien

The leader of Iran has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map! You think this guy should have nukes!!!

No I don't. I just think that some people are forgetting that the US/UK/China/France/Russia/Israel/India/Pakistan and South Africa till they dismantled them have also got nuclear weapons as well but not a huge amount is made of that.

A few slaps on the wrist and then its all brushed under the carpet for India and Pakistan and a lot of looking the other way for Israel's weapons.

[BBKing]

The US has checks and balances and so far they've done a superb job of stopping the President bankrupting his own country, violating the Constitution, clamping down on his people's freedom, eavesdropping at will without judicial oversight and destabilising the world through imperialistic military action. The appointment of Samuel Alito* to the Supreme Court bench can only strengthen the power of US democracy and provide a proper balance to the power of the executive.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

The difference between Iran and the USA is that when the USA threatens someone you know they're damned well capable of attacking them, they've proved it (ask the people of El Salvador, Haiti, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Serbia...). Iran, since the revolution there, haven't attacked anyone, although they've *been* attacked by Saddam Hussein, supported at the time by, er, the US and UK who hoped cynically that they'd knock each other out (Saddam's Iraq was taken off the list of terrorist supporting nations by Reagan in order to help him out against the Iranians).

* This gentleman believes in the supreme power of the President in over all other bodies in the USA (including his interpretation of the law being the only one that matters), abrogating the rights of women over their own bodies and that illegal immigrants have no fundamental rights. He also dislikes the decisions of the former Chief Justice Warren, who was in charge from 1953 to 1969 when the US did a lot of good things legally like civil rights and desegregation in schools, plus the rather obvious decision that voting systems should be based on one-man-one-vote rather than gerrymandering in favour of a particular party (no prizes for guessing which one at the moment). Naturally Warren is intensely disliked by US conservatives and racists, which makes him OK in my book (he's also the Warren of the JFK inquiry, of course).